Manchester Memoirs, Vol. xliii. (1899), ^o. 11. 21 



Calinagince, Pierince (section Aporia), and P arnassiince 

 (section Glacialzs, Stubbendorfi, and Mnemosyne). 



A few words now as to the phylogeny. 



We have seen from the evidence of distribution that 

 it is probably an ancient butterfly, a probability I think 

 transformed into a certainty when the structure of the ? 

 feet is examined. The antennal structure shews an affinity 

 to Liiehdorfia, Parnassius, and Papilio, 3 genera repre- 

 senting 3 sub-families of the PapilionidcB. The o.^^ is 

 similar to Danais and not to Hypolymnas, with perhaps 

 also a resemblance to Pieris. 



The basal cell is strictly Parnassiine in its develop- 

 ment. The discocellular nervules of the hind-wing is 

 similar to Hypolymnas $ , but not the male. The general 

 facies is in part similar to Parnassius. 



Thus the whole evidence of structure of this aberrant 

 sub-family points to its being an archaic insect, with a 

 great similarity to the PapilionidcB , in the sub-families 

 PapiliotiincB, ParnassiincB, and Pierince, and to Nymphalidce, 

 in the sub-family Danaince, but not to the sub-family which 

 includes Hypolymnas. Calinaga thus appears to be an 

 off-shoot, an early off-shoot, from the lepidopterous 

 phylum which gave rise to the Pieris, Papilio, Leptocircus, 

 and Parnassius and Nymphalid stock. 



It almost marks the position at which the Pieris- 

 Papilio-Parnassius phylum separated from the Nymphalid, 

 but I think the male forelegs will place it on the Nymphalid 

 branch as the first stage of the phylum. 



